We all realise you hate google, but this seems perfectly legit to me, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm sure the real lawyers will have a field day arguing about it, but somehow I really don't care if Google profits from typo-squatting.

[EDIT]: P.S. On a slightly related note; I have to do an ethics course next semester at uni; that'll be interesting to see...

id Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> typo squatting is illegal, google aids in typo
> squatting by paying off people that are doing
> illegal things, and of course profiting
> themselves.

Typo squatting is illegal? no shit. Shows how much I know. I would have just put typo squatting in the slightly unethical category.

> And from the article:
>
> "If a misdirected surfer hits a sponsored link,
> the legitimate domain owner ends up paying the
> typo-squatter for that referral, and Google as
> well."
>
> So by aiding the typo squatters the real domain
> owners end up paying, seems a bit unethical no?

I'd seriously side with Google here, it's not their responsibility to figure out who is using their service and for what purposes.

And in any case; not really, domain owners aren't forced to pay up, they choose whether to pay for the service or not.

If you start going down the road of "why doesn't google remove the accounts of known typo squatters?", I'd say you could have a point that it's unethical to profiteer from a crime you know about; but typo squatting doesn't seem like much of a crime to me, so the care factor just isn't there.

1999 Anti-Cybersquatting Protection Act, it may not be illegal depending on where you live, in the US it is.

Google obviously knows who the criminals are and are willing participants, why do you think bankofdamerica.com would pull up bankofamerica.com google ads? The whole scheme can't work without google (and others) active participation.